About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
incomes now and ensuring security for the future. hthis is the end of vision that speaker boehner without for the country last week. i cannot think why the present would not embrace it. someone said we should go over the cliff. just go off of the cliff. hope for the best. i do not think that is what the american people had in mind when they went to the polls last week. but they had in mind is that we put the contest of the past two years behind us and work it out. the best way forward in the way that will lead to jobs and growth, a smaller deficits, and you were political fights is to keep everyone where they are. figure out a way to avoid the automatic defense cuts scheduled to hit at the end of the year without putting a penny last thing we promised and committed to the entitlement reforms that we all claim we want. a simpler tax code that lowers rates and cuts special interest loopholes would create jobs and result in more revenue without raising anyone's rates. we know this because we have seen it before. it actually works. i do not think washington should get any of that extra revenu
. john boehner still in the house for the time being at the treasury. the president is back in the white house and harry reid is in the senate with a few more seats. why should i believe this would end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> because again i'm not going to try to talk to you in optimism but let's look at what's changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging for the first time in this debate in public that it's agreed to increase in revenues as part of an agreement that helps restore fiscal balance. that's a very important change. you can debate on what motivated that change, and of course it's true that approach has been a popular very substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit on a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform and putting it off indefinitely is not good for the country. that's important, too. and i also think again if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying with many elected representatives are saying there's a lot of
years later, what moment are we in as boehner enters? >> this is a magic moment, i really do. it is a moment when our generation has a chance to do something about this problem that we created. it is our generation that got us into this mess, and we ought to get ourselves out. we got a good chance. you got a second-term democrat president who has come out and said he is willing to put entitlements on the table. big deal. you've got a speaker, a republican speaker, who really gets at, who really understands the depths of the problems we face, and he has come out and said we are going to put revenues on the table. big move. he got at least half the members of the senate already saying they will support a balanced plan, which makes a lot of sense. we have got the business community lined up firmly against -- for doing something smart, and i guess most importantly, we got this fiscal cliff where if we go over it, we are going to face the most predictable economic crisis in history. fortunately for all of us, it is also the most of voidable. this is the magic moment to get somethi
speaker boehner said and said, look, let's work on closing these loopholes and deductions. that is common ground. there's no reason why -- >> that would raise taxes on people. this is where you get this fight in the republican party. because if your taxes go up but your tax rate doesn't go up, is that a sell republicans can live with? >> it depends how it's mixed up. we don't want to raise the tax rate. if you're closing loopholes and broadening the base, lowering the rate, then i think we could get there. >> you signed groemp norquist's pledge i'm going to assume because pretty much every congressman did. >> yes. >> would you be fine doing a compromise where you would go against your signature on that pledge. if you felt there was a compromise on the table -- >> i do not -- i do not -- >> to the pledge -- dramatic, wasn't it? >> it was dramatic. >> but i need these notes so i'm going to put them back like that. >> i do not intend to do that. i want to fight for the principles i believe in. i, too, was elected, and i think that's part of the give and take. >> grover norquist was not elect
week. host: "the baltimore sun" has a story, "boehner ways next moves." this is from "the wall street journal." "post office hint of gop path." host: "she fit a profile." so, more on leadership, which both sides will be voting for this week when they return to washington on who will be their leaders. so, we will continue to watch that story for u.s. well. part of the mix to avoid the fiscal cliff is these jobless benefits. that is the headline in the politics and policy section of "the washington post." "over 2 million americans could lose their jobless benefits before the end of the year." host: susan, michigan, what do you think? should we cut medicare and social security? caller: absolutely not. absolutely not. host: why not? caller: i am a woman who has finally reached the age of social security. all the years the work, this money was taken out of my paycheck. i was told from a very young age that when i reached a fine age of the period where you retire and you can get social security, that all the money that i paid in would be refunded to me. this money is not to be touched, not
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
party voters. you know, mitch mcconnell has to worry about a primary collage in 2014, and boehner has to worry about a leadership challenge from the right so there's certainly a primp on what they can do. that said, the incentives have changed, and you saw chris christie's incentive changed, and there's, you know, the fiscal cliff creates different incentives, and i think the end of -- the end of that one term goal means that different republicans will start to have different incentives which means that on immigration, perhaps on a long term deficit deal, there will be avenues for potential cooperation. whether, you know, whether it takes, you know, more ass kickings or a real statesman to lead the republicans towards a different future, i think that depends on what happens over the next few years. >> i mean, i would add that, you know, there's a real brulalty to sitting in washington, that was just breathtaking to me. as a relative outsider, going into the mill and the buzz saw of the political apparatus in washington, and i think that, you know, it's bipartisan horribleness. it's no
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)